Suppression of the earliest version and material contradictions render conviction unsafe, warranting benefit of doubt.

On 5 July 2022 at approximately 9:00 p.m., the appellant allegedly entered the informant Arun Sharma’s residential premises while armed with a country-made pistol, misbehaved with the informant’s wife, and fired three shots, one of which allegedly struck Arun’s brother, Santosh Sharma, in the abdomen.

The prosecution further alleged that the appellant assaulted the informant and his wife, issued threats, and that three empty cartridge cases and one live cartridge were recovered from the place of occurrence.

Sahar P.S. Case No. 152 of 2022 was registered on 6 July 2022 under Sections 307, 504, 506 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

After investigation and committal, charges were framed and seven prosecution witnesses were examined, including the injured witness, alleged eyewitnesses, doctors and the Investigating Officer.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 307 and 448 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of seven years under Section 307 IPC, three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act and six months under Section 448 IPC, with the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

The appellant challenged the conviction, principally alleging an anti-dated FIR, suppression of the earliest version, material contradictions in the eyewitness testimony, doubtful seizure proceedings, and non-production of the bullet and firearm.

Whether the FIR was anti-dated or preceded by suppression of the earliest version of the occurrence, thereby affecting the credibility and fairness of the prosecution case?

Whether the material contradictions among the prosecution witnesses regarding the number, direction and target of firing, and the appellant’s route of entry, rendered the ocular evidence unreliable?

Whether the doubtful seizure list, non-recovery of the alleged firearm and non-production of the bullet allegedly removed from the injured established a reasonable doubt regarding the offences under Sections 307 and 448 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act?

Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and reversal of the conviction and sentence?

The Court applied Sections 307 and 448 IPC concerning attempt to murder and house-trespass, respectively, and Section 27 of the Arms Act concerning use of an arm or ammunition in contravention of the statute.

The prosecution was required to establish the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt, and material contradictions affecting the genesis, manner and identity of the occurrence could not be treated as minor discrepancies.

Relying on State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu, AIR 1993 SC 2644, the Court held that deliberate failure to record the earliest information and subsequent preparation of the FIR after deliberation may render the investigation tainted and unsafe for reliance.

Relying on State of Bihar v. Bishwanath Rai, 1997 SCC (Cri) 1148, it further held that where eyewitnesses fail to give a correct and consistent account of the occurrence, their evidence may be discarded even if parts of it appear otherwise consistent.

The Court found that the seizure list was allegedly prepared on 5 July 2022 at 10:15 p.m., before the FIR was formally registered on 6 July 2022 at 8:00 p.m., yet it contained the FIR number.

This suggested either that the seizure list was prepared later with an incorrect date and time or that the FIR was subsequently prepared, with neither possibility satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.

The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 also indicated that the police had received and recorded information about the occurrence on the night of the incident, but those statements were not produced as the earliest version of the case.

The eyewitness testimony was materially inconsistent. PW-1 contradicted himself as to whether the shots were aimed at him or at PW-3; PW-2 stated that only two shots were fired, contrary to the FIR’s allegation of three shots; and PW-3 gave a different account of the first shot and the person targeted.

The witnesses also contradicted one another regarding whether the appellant entered from the northern or southern side and by which route he entered the premises.

These inconsistencies went to the root of the prosecution case rather than constituting ordinary variations.

The seizure evidence was additionally found unreliable because PW-4 stated that the seizure list was prepared at the police station, despite its purported preparation at the place of occurrence.

The bullet allegedly removed from the injured was not produced before the trial court, no explanation for its non-production was offered, and the alleged firearm was never recovered or exhibited.

Considering these defects cumulatively, the Court held that the prosecution evidence did not safely establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The FIR appeared to be an afterthought, the earliest version of the occurrence had been suppressed, the ocular evidence contained material contradictions, and the seizure and medical material were inadequately proved.

The appeal was allowed.

The judgment of conviction dated 16 December 2024 and the order of sentence dated 19 December 2024 were set aside, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

As the appellant was in custody, the Court directed that he be released forthwith in the present case, unless his custody was required in any other case.